Telangana High Court
Mandra Uma Devi vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1874, 1875, 1876 and 1877 of 2024 COMMON ORDER:
Since the lis involved in all these criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and are being decided by way of this common order.
2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the docket order dated 29.01.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in Crime Nos.194, 217, 218 and 219 of 2022 by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the then Government of united Andhra Pradesh on payment of certain premium amounts issued title deeds and patta pass books to 66 farmers i.e., Gunti Narasimha and others are residents of Budwel (village), Rajendranar Mandal and allotted different extent of lands admeasuring Ac.281.00 guntas in Survey Nos.282 to 289 situated as Budwel Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the year 1997, the Revenue Divisional 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District passed an order, dated 19.11.1997, cancelling the pattas granted to 66 pattadars and evicted the encroachers. Questioning the said orders, the said pattadars filed W.P.No.8512 of 2000, and the same was allowed by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh directing the RDO, Chevella, to give them an opportunity and to file their explanation and pass appropriate orders accordingly, as such, the pattadars submitted their explanation before the RDO, Chevella, and the same was rejected vide order dated 13.04.2008.
4. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the pattadars again filed W.P.No.2412 of 2002 before the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and the same was also allowed setting aside the cancellation orders dated 13.04.2008. Subsequently, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh allotted 800 square yards of plotted land and 200 square yards of plotted land to each assignee in the above said survey numbers, vide HMDA Lr.No.b5/6069/2007. Further, the land was not demarcated from Ac.281.00 and no plots were allotted to 66 assignees and 82 encroachers.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch
5. During the course of investigation, it reveals that the accused in Crime Nos.194, 217, 218 and 219 of 2022, who are doing the real estate business came to know about the allotment of lands to the assignees and encroachers. Though the accused came to know that it is a Government land, they have approached the assignees and the encroachers and offered to buy their respective extents of land and also get them clearances from the concerned Government Departments. Thereafter, all the accused in the above crimes executed an Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.09.2020 with M/s. U & A Infra Projects for an amount of Rs.27 crores.
6. Later, as per the reports collected from the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, it is revealed that the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal registered the above said lands to 166 allottees, out of which 145 allottees registered their lands to M/s. U & A Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. It is further stated that Vesella Greens colluded with M/s. U & A Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and habituated to illegally trespass into various Government lands.
7. As a result, the Investigating Officer filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition/requisition petition before the trial 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch Court. The trial Court, vide order dated 29.01.2024, allowed the requisition petition directing the Investigating Officer in the above four cases to monitor and see the above search to conduct and proceed with as per the procedure established by the law and comply the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition.
8. Heard Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024; Sri E.Uma Maheswar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Muriki Srujan, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1875 of 2024; Sri E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri D. Aniketh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1876 of 2024 and Sri Acharya Bharath Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1877 of 2024 and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are no way concerned with Crime Nos.194, 217, 218 and 219 of 2022 and that they are not accused in the said Crimes. He further stated that the 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch trial Court without applying its mind issued search warrant to the concerned Investigating Officer, which is not in accordance with law. He further submitted that the petitioners are not arrayed as accused in the crimes which are referred in the requisition petition and that the Crimes are related to certain commercial disputes arising under certain Memorandum of Understanding allegedly executed between the complainant and the accused in the said crimes, as such, the petitioners are neither concerned with the Memorandum of Understanding nor concerned with the said transactions. The petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the subject plots pursuant to the registered sale deeds.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 sought permission from the Court and obtained search warrant, in which, it shows that they collected reports from the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal and found that the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal registered the plots to 166 allottees out of which 144 allottees executed Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of M/s. U & A Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., who in turn executed the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. On this basis, respondent Nos.3 and 4 contended that the petitioners in collusion with M/s. U & A 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., illegally trespassed into the various Government lands. Therefore, the trial Court issued search warrant to the concerned Investigating Officer. As per Section 93 of Cr.P.C., when executing a search warrant, the investigating Officer, who is in charge, must search or inspect only the area or portion, so specified by the Court, if the Court deems it fit for the purpose of search or inspection.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners incessantly submitted that the Investigating Officer without conducting any preliminary enquiry in relation to the alleged involvement of the petitioners in the said crimes issued notices to the petitioners seeking information relating to the subject crimes. He further submitted that the subject crimes are of the year 2022 and the search is conducted after a period of one and half year i.e., in the year 2024 against the petitioners, who are not part of the subject crimes.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the allegation in the FIR shows that there is breach of the MOU by the accused and the reason for search is encroachment of Government Lands by the petitioners, which shows that there is no relation between them. He further 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch submitted that pursuant to the impugned order dated 29.01.2024, respondent Nos.3 and 4 seized the laptops, computers and other documents belong to the petitioners, as a result of seizure, the petitioners are unable to undertake their business activities. Therefore, the trial Court without applying its mind and lack of reasons, issued the search warrant, which is not in accordance with law. Hence, he prayed the Court to set aside the order dated 29.01.2024 by allowing this Criminal Petitions.
13. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnana 1 and another, wherein in paragraph No.17, it is held as follows:
"17. The appellant and his co-accused are office- bearers of a public institution styled as H.M.D.P. Sabha. We were informed at the hearing of this petition that this Sabha is a public institution engaged in the activity of running educational institutions and supporting objects or activities of a general charitable nature. When the first complaint was filed, the allegation therein was that criminal breach of trust in respect of the funds of public institution has been committed by the office-bearers thereof. A search warrant was issued but it was quashed by the Kerala High Court. Thereafter another complaint was filed making some more serious allegations and a 1 (1980) 1 Supreme Court Cases 264 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch search warrant was sought. Now, this search warrant was being issued to conduct search of the premises used as office of an institution. The office bearers of the Sabha are accused of an offence. Documents and books of accounts of the institution are required for the purpose of the trial against the office-bearers of the institution. The office premises could not be said to be in possession of any individual accused but strict sensu it would be in possession of the institution. Books of accounts and other documents of the institution could not be said to be in personal custody or possession of the office bearers of the institution but they are in possession of the institution and are lying in the office of the institution. A search of such a public place under the authority of a general search warrant can easily be sustained under section 93(1)(c). If the order of the learned Magistrate is construed to mean this, there is no illegality committed in issuing a search warrant. Of course, issuance of search warrant is a serious matter and it would be advisable not to dispose of an application for search warrant in a mechanical way by a laconic order. Issue of search warrant being in the discretion of the Magistrate it would be reasonable to expect of the Magistrate to give reasons which swayed his discretion in favour of granting the request. A clear application of mind by the learned Magistrate must be discernible in the order granting the search warrant.
Having said this, we see no justification for interfering with the order of the High Court in this case."
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha 9 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch Kumari vs. Government of UP and others 2 , wherein in paragraph No.31, it is held as follows:
"31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an inquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. (As we have proposed to make a detailed discussion about the power of a police officer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence within the ambit of Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the ensuing part of this judgment, we do not propose to deal with those sections in extenso in the present context.) In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the 2 [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713 10 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch manner provided by sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code."
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others 3, wherein in paragraph No.32, it is held as follows:
"30. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the investigating officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The investigating officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The investigating officer 'is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth'."
16. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no layout issued by the HMDA. The Tahsildar registered the land in favour of M/s. U & A Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., who in turn, registered the lands in favour of the petitioners. Further, there are no boundaries in the subject lands and huge money was transferred to the 3 (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 254 11 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch assignees. Therefore, the petitioners in collusion with M/s. U & A Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. illegally trespassed into the Government lands and tried to grab the same. He further submitted that though the petitioners are not the parties to the subject crimes, is not a ground to set aside the order dated 29.01.2024. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed the order, there is no illegality to interfere with the order of the trial Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petitions.
17. In support of his submission, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yadaiah and Anr. v. Sate of Telangana and others 4, wherein in paragaraph No.73, it is held as under:
"73. Importantly, we must be cautious of the difference between the terms 'acquisition' and 'resumption' in the context of property laws. While both terms indicate deprivation of a right, there exists a significant distinction in their actual legal connotation. Acquisition denotes a positive act on behalf of the State to deprive an individual's enjoyment of a pre-existing right in a property in furtherance of its policy whereas resumption denotes a punitive action by the State to take back the right or an interest in a property which was granted by it in the first place. The term 'resumption' must not therefore be conflated with the term 'acquisition' as employed within 4 Civil Appeal No.4835 of 2023 and batch 12 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution so as to create a right to compensation. Keeping this mark distinction in view, it is not necessary for us to determine whether an expropriated owner has an impeachable constitutional right to compensation under Article 300A if the Constitution in lieu of his acquired property."
18. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioners in all the cases are challenging the docket order dated 29.01.2024 stating that without mentioning reasons and issuing notices to the petitioners the trial Court without applying its mind allowed the petition and directed the concerned Investigating Officer to conduct search as prayed in the requisition.
19. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court issued search warrant to the concerned Investigating Officer without applying its mind. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.S Kuttan Pillai (supra), the issuance of search warrant is abuse of process of law when there are no reasons mentioned. Furthermore, it would be wise to avoid handing a search warrant application in a mechanical manner with a laconic order because the issuing of a search warrant is a serious matter. Since the Magistrate has to take the final decision for issuing the search warrant 13 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch but it would be reasonable to expect him to provide justifications for his decision to accept the request. Further, a clear application of mind by the learned Magistrate must be evident in the order while granting the search warrant.
20. In the case on hand, the trial Court basing on the requisition petition filed by the Investigating Officer issued search warrants. A perusal of the requisition petition filed by the Investigating Officer shows that the petitioners are not the accused in the Crime Nos.194, 217, 218 and 219 of 2022. Instead of investigating the accused, who are relevant to the said crimes, the Investigating Officer investigated the petitioners, who purchased the said plots, issued search warrant without issuing the notice and seized the property. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, while ordering the search warrant, it is not necessary that the persons must be the accused in the crime. Further, the learned Magistrate has the Power to order for search or inspection of the premises, if there is any reasonable ground as per Section 93 of Cr.P.C, to issue the search warrant. Therefore, the above said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
14
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch
21. In addition to that, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., to conduct any preliminary inquiry and the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. On going to the said contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari (supra), held that if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
22. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, the crimes referred in the requisition petition are not related to the petitioners, however, the allegation against the petitioners are that they have encroached the Government lands, which are related to the crimes referred in the requisition petition. Therefore, the trial Court issued search warrants to the 15 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch Investigating Officer and they seized the properties belong to the petitioners. Hence, there is no force in the said contention and the said judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
23. In consequence, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 clearly acted in a pre- mediated manner without reference to the procedure established under law to conduct the investigation in a free and fair manner. Further, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babubhai (supra), wherein it is held that the investigating Officer is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth.
24. In the instant case, the trial Court allowed the requisition petition directing the Investigating Officer to monitor and see the above search to conduct and proceed with as per the procedure established by law in the said crimes and comply with the same. As seen from the record, it is clear that during the Course of investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer noticed that the petitioners encroached the Government lands, which are related to crimes in the requisition petition. 16
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are no way related with the subject crimes, they are strangers to the subject crimes, without noticing the same and without stating any reasons, the trial Court permitted the Investigating Officer to issue search warrant. Further, it is noticed that as per the law laid down in Babubhai (Supra) the Investigating Officer rightly served the search warrant upon the petitioners to bring out the real unvarnished truth.
25. Further, It is specifically contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that HMDA did not issue any layout pertaining to the subject lands, but MRO registered the lands in favour of the petitioners. Further, huge money was transferred to the assignees, as such, petitioners tried to grab the government land. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yadaiah (supra), wherein it is categorically held that it is crucial to note that in the context of property legislation, there is a distinction between the phrases "acquisition" and "resumption." Even though both expressions refer to the denial of a right, their actual legal meanings differ significantly. 17
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch
26. Resumption is the state's punitive action to reclaim the right or interest in property that it originally granted, whereas acquisition is the state's proactive act to deny someone their enjoyment of a pre-existing right in a property in furtherance of its policy. Therefore, in order to establish a right to compensation, the term "resumption" cannot be confused with the term "acquisition" as used in Article 300-A of the Constitution. We do not need to decide whether an expropriated owner has an impeachable constitutional right to compensation under Article 300-A of the Constitution in place of his acquired property, given this mark distinction.
27. In the present case, there are allegations against the accused in the Crimes, which are referred in requisition petition. In addition, there is an allegation that the petitioners conspired with M/s. U&A Infra Projects Private Limited, who then carried out the sale deeds in their favour. It is pertinent to note that there is an allegation that the petitioners are being involved to usurp the disputed land for private interests, even before allotting the same to the beneficiaries.
28. Given the foregoing consideration and the facts and circumstances of the Cases, this Court is of the considered 18 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch view that the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and this Court not find any merit in the criminal petitions to set aside the order of the trial Court.
29. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed confirming the order dated 29.01.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in Crime Nos.194, 217, 218 and 219 of 2022 by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 05.09.2024 SAI